Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

866 replies

slet · 24/02/2026 15:39

It’s interesting how this is being discussed atm. I see Ash Sarkar has framed it as an example of competing rights between disabled people and victims of racism, forgetting about intersectionality. But there is a struggle from those on the extreme left to see how women’s rights are compromised by ceding to TRAs.

not expressing myself very well but thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
BackToLurk · 25/02/2026 10:01

It should be possible to acknowledge the hurt the use of the word causes without placing any blame on JD for the use of the word. If he shouted “fucking slag” near Gisèle Pelicot I think we’d get why she may be hurt. We might even be able to understand that it may trigger a response in other victims of sexual violence.

I also think we’ve seen the scourge of social media, and leaping into everything quickly at play. It seems that the responses of Jamie Foxx etc have not helped any kind of understanding.

Ultimately we’re back to conflicting rights. These issues are complex. They require compassion, and nuance and they can cause hurt. I’m starting to wonder how well our quick fix, everything is black and white society is equipped to deal with them.

Anactor · 25/02/2026 10:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Adds ‘moral responsibility’ to “concepts the poster does not really understand.”

And now I’ll take the excellent advice of RedToothBrush, who has explained the situation much better than I can, and walk away.

NotBadConsidering · 25/02/2026 10:05

OtterlyAstounding · 25/02/2026 09:57

So with time, it's potentially possible that the response could be rationalised, yes. But initially, and possibly always, that response might occur. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to not want to force yourself to experience a deeply distressing trauma response every time you interact with someone.

And obviously, it must be terrible to be Davidson!! I can't imagine how isolating and mortifying it must be, and I have every sympathy for him.

It's a very difficult condition precisely because it's so antisocial, and hopefully awareness means most people aren't bothered by tics, but I don't think it's unreasonable for certain tics to hit certain people in a way that hurts/upsets them, and I think they should be allowed to feel those feelings without being told they're terrible people.

But no one has said they are terrible people (whoever was upset by it) for being upset by it.

Where there is objection is people claiming they were upset by it because it’s clearly deliberate or his “real” belief slipping out. Which isn’t true of course.

And it’s notable how most people who are doing this it weren’t even in the room.

I think there is definitely a fair argument that the BBC should have done better with editing.

IHateWasps · 25/02/2026 10:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

His team appears to consist mainly of Tourette’s charities judging by the fact that the responses came first from them and not a PR agency/agent and that the words were clearly his. Possibly some people from the studio or an agent now thanks to the film being made but he in no way has the same resources of major wealthy Hollywood celebrities who literally have a lawyer, reputation manager, agent,PR manager, speechwriters, assistants etc.

I’ve worked in advocacy with disabled people who had “teams” who had teams were advocacy workers, support workers, social worker, occupational therapist, a representative from a charity like Headway for brain injury etc. But they weren’t exactly a collective force that could be assembled at a moment’s notice and none of them had any real power or influence so that there’s a team does not mean that the individual has a plethora of effective resources in any way equivalent to the team that major celebrities have.

And regardless of his wording I can guarantee that many would have an issue with it because they don’t want an apology, they want blood.

GenderlessVoid · 25/02/2026 10:13

NotBadConsidering · 25/02/2026 09:31

Yet people who are aware of coprolalia aren’t bothered by being yelled at with “FUCKING CUNT”. I’m not.

People who aren’t aware of coprolalia ARE triggered by that.

People CAN control whether they are triggered by coprolalia, whatever the shouted words may be, if they take a moment to understand it.

If people are triggered by the words, whatever the shouted words may be, because they have never needed to, or bothered to understand and it caught them by surprise, that isn’t nice. And I can understand that would invoke a negative feeling initially.

But that doesn’t mean there’s justification for ongoing anger towards the person suffering from coprolalia or justification for demands for certain actions from him. What should he say sorry for?

“I’m sorry you weren’t educated enough about my condition that I made an award winning film about.”

“I’m sorry other people didn’t tell you enough about my condition before you came.”

The guy made a film explaining to all the people who hear what he says “it’s not about you” and still people think it’s about them.

You may not be bothered by that but some people would be, even if they knew it was completely involuntary. (FWIW, Tourette's used to be called unvoluntary bc for many there is a small element of voluntary action. That's why many with Tourette's can sometimes suppress or redirect their tics, e.g., sing God Save the King instead of shouting FUCKING CUNT or tap on their thigh rhythmically instead of hitting themselves in the face. Sometimes.)

I have CPTSD as well as Tourette's. My CPTSD might be triggered by someone yelling FUCKING CUNT even if I knew that they had Tourette's. I have even less control over my CPTSD than I do over my Tourette's. (I'm one of the people who can sometimes redirect tics.)

It would be nice if we could have some grace both for those who have Tourette's and those who are triggered or offended by things that get blurted out by those who are ticcing. It can be both/and.

BackToLurk · 25/02/2026 10:13

attichoarder · 25/02/2026 10:00

I haven't heard or seen anyone call JD a racist or made any other comment with regard to his views. I don't know what his opinons are other than relating to his own condition. It is the use of language that is offensive and the fact that this is being seen as acceptable which normalises those words - in this case they were racist but other groups would have been offended due to the offensive nature of the language used. People are censored when offering views quite respectfully and calmly, accepting the offensive language is ok due to whatever reason normalises its use

I haven't heard or seen anyone call JD a racist

That is the very clear implication from comments along the lines of “he’s saying what’s in his head” “he didn’t say it ‘at’ white men” etc etc.

NotBadConsidering · 25/02/2026 10:17

GenderlessVoid · 25/02/2026 10:13

You may not be bothered by that but some people would be, even if they knew it was completely involuntary. (FWIW, Tourette's used to be called unvoluntary bc for many there is a small element of voluntary action. That's why many with Tourette's can sometimes suppress or redirect their tics, e.g., sing God Save the King instead of shouting FUCKING CUNT or tap on their thigh rhythmically instead of hitting themselves in the face. Sometimes.)

I have CPTSD as well as Tourette's. My CPTSD might be triggered by someone yelling FUCKING CUNT even if I knew that they had Tourette's. I have even less control over my CPTSD than I do over my Tourette's. (I'm one of the people who can sometimes redirect tics.)

It would be nice if we could have some grace both for those who have Tourette's and those who are triggered or offended by things that get blurted out by those who are ticcing. It can be both/and.

Fair enough, that makes sense. Apologies for the generalisation.

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BackToLurk · 25/02/2026 10:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

His statement made it clear that he was aware that distress was caused. An apology implies some degree of responsibility, and he wasn’t responsible (in the generally agreed definition) for the use of the word.

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 25/02/2026 10:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I don’t know how many times it has to be stated that he HAS apologised.

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 25/02/2026 10:29

RedToothBrush · 25/02/2026 09:59

If you say so. I think I've been pretty clear about WHY I've said it.

Frankly I'm fed up the missing the point and over simplifications in politics across the board. Issues are deeply complex. Sometimes you can't always protect everyone. You do your best but you also have to understand that sometimes there are impossible situations where there are no winners.

Tourettes is one of those situations which can't be controlled.

But there is a persistent idea that there MUST be an apology, there MUST be a recognition of harm, there MUST some one responsible, there MUST be some one to blame. Sometimes theres just not.

Tbh, whilst I think the BBC might have handled it differently and perhaps better I STILL think that it wouldn't have been accepted and there STILL would have been a whole issue because the problem ultimately is that people do not want to accept people with Tourettes in society because they want to be faced with a difficult and unpalatable situation. BECAUSE they still have an agenda to push and they are determined to use the misfortune of someone vulnerable with Tourettes to do that. We also have a massive desire as a society for sanitisation and hiding things that don't fit with that. We'd rather pretend that it doesn't exist and erase it. All of this adds up to the issue with those with Tourettes ending up in a shitty situation though no fault of their own.

There has been a persistence on this thread to push the idea of Tourettes being associate with racism even whilst saying 'oh well i don't think there should be an apology'. It is still asking for an acknowledgment of wrong doing though. One that probably doesn't really exist.

This is a very rare situation where no one is ultimately wrong. Its just awful all round but it comes back to recognition - as per the equality act - in terms of who is most at risk and who is most vulnerable in that situation at that time.

Yes this is a situation where everyone does just have to walk away calmly and just get the fuck on with it. The lessons learned crap won't actually help those with Tourettes. The lessons learned crap won't change anything with regards to racism, because you actually have to have racism to do that.

What we learn from the situation is that muddying the waters with language only confuses matters. It doesn't reclaim shit. It leads to accusations where theres no real intent. It leads to situations where people think they can say things but it causes problems because of who said it being deemed unacceptable. Language needs to clear and accessible to all without this 'in crowd' or layered meanings issue because those create conflict points.

In the case of Tourettes we have people who have issues with communication full stop.

Communication is about verbal and visual cues. It is about social connections and relationships. Its about context and intent. Its about the overt and the implied.

Tourettes does not have a hidden underlying implied meaning - it does not reflect offensive views that a person might be hiding. Its context is a neurological condition that can't be controlled. It reflects socially accepted and already acknowledged understandings of the unacceptable. It has clear visual and verbal mannerisms which are not consistent with normal patterns of behaviour which we all know and recognise. There is no targeting nor intent. Its a manifestion of your worst nightmare of thought. And yet STILL we somehow have to ignore this, and 'acknowledge the suffering it causes to others'? Even though that actively makes the ticking and anxiety issues that drive Tourettes worse. Hmm. No. We need to recognise when we all just need to let things go even if it makes us upset or hurts us because actually otherwise it causes way more problems. Its not about proving a fucking point.

No. Sometimes we have to understand that we just need to walk away and deal with these difficult issues that Tourettes throws up in a more appropriate way and at a more appropriate time when that vulnerable person isn't going to get caught in the cross fire.

We need to recognise when we all just need to let things go even if it makes us upset or hurts us because actually otherwise it causes way more problems. Its not about proving a fucking point.

Yet here you are gatekeeping and endorsing hate. Any water left in the Kettle?

IHateWasps · 25/02/2026 10:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

He has since contacted the Sinners studio. Why does he owe a public apology? It’s just window dressing. It’s purely performative. And why are Hollywood actors more worthy of an apology than the other hundreds/thousands of people he meets on the street, who have been met with his tics that could be considered to be extremely offensive including, I suspect, that particular word.

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:29

Do you mean the statement he issued?

I read that and I'm pretty sure it wasn't an apology. It seemed carefully crafted and went all around the houses to to avoid including the word. "apologise" or "sorry".

has he issued another? If he has and it includes those words, then that's the end of it. Has he?

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:33

IHateWasps · 25/02/2026 10:29

He has since contacted the Sinners studio. Why does he owe a public apology? It’s just window dressing. It’s purely performative. And why are Hollywood actors more worthy of an apology than the other hundreds/thousands of people he meets on the street, who have been met with his tics that could be considered to be extremely offensive including, I suspect, that particular word.

Because his action was done in public

And it wasn't just Hollywood actors who were hurt-although they had to suck it up on a public stage- it was many thousands of black people and white people like myself who were also offended and distressed. My mixed race child heard it and was visibly upset.

Maybe we don't count.

So be it.

OtterlyAstounding · 25/02/2026 10:34

NotBadConsidering · 25/02/2026 10:05

But no one has said they are terrible people (whoever was upset by it) for being upset by it.

Where there is objection is people claiming they were upset by it because it’s clearly deliberate or his “real” belief slipping out. Which isn’t true of course.

And it’s notable how most people who are doing this it weren’t even in the room.

I think there is definitely a fair argument that the BBC should have done better with editing.

I just went back through the thread to grab some quotes, and saw that my comments, where I called out SingleSexSpacesInSchools have all been deleted, while they, who dropped such gems as:

"How dark does someone’s skin have to be in order for it to be ok for them to laugh at this exactly? Can you give a number? I look Greek for example that’s quite dark compared to someone from Scotland."

has not been.

So now I just can't be bothered. I shared something about my own trauma responses on here, and got told I'm being self-centred etc, so I'm bowing out. I'm disappointed that so many commenters on FWRs are dismissive of anyone else's conditions or traumas, and ignore racist comments, though.

GrooveArmada · 25/02/2026 10:36

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

This is deflection.

I did not comment on every single post on this thread. Does it mean I agree with all posts I didn't comment on? No. I think there were offensive, minimising and racist comments made. But those posters did not engage with me or my views about disability and its acceptance. You did, repeatedly. And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate.

Is it OK for you to jump to conclusions about me the way you did? No.

You seem to be coming from a place of deep hurt and many of your posts come off as 'the world is out to get me'. I don't walk your path and I'm sure this didn't come from nowhere. But you're getting really carried away here and if you actually pause and consider what many posters are trying to convey instead of firing off your emotions it will perhaps help you see that all that needs to be done here is acceptance of a person's disability and moving on without expectations.

ProfessorBinturong · 25/02/2026 10:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Not the same. In your example you intended to throw the ball, but threw it poorly. Someone with Tourettes isn't trying to say something and comes out with the wrong thing.

It's less like someone misthrowing a ball, and more like an apple falling from a tree. If it lands on your head it might be painful, but it's not offensive because there's no intent. And you wouldn't demand an apology from the tree (I hope, although after the past couple of days I'm beginning to wonder).

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OtterlyAstounding · 25/02/2026 10:40

GrooveArmada · 25/02/2026 10:36

This is deflection.

I did not comment on every single post on this thread. Does it mean I agree with all posts I didn't comment on? No. I think there were offensive, minimising and racist comments made. But those posters did not engage with me or my views about disability and its acceptance. You did, repeatedly. And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate.

Is it OK for you to jump to conclusions about me the way you did? No.

You seem to be coming from a place of deep hurt and many of your posts come off as 'the world is out to get me'. I don't walk your path and I'm sure this didn't come from nowhere. But you're getting really carried away here and if you actually pause and consider what many posters are trying to convey instead of firing off your emotions it will perhaps help you see that all that needs to be done here is acceptance of a person's disability and moving on without expectations.

"And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate."

What comments?

And no. The world is not out to get me. I have a very happy life actually, thanks. But my experiences mean that I can understand why some people might react badly to tics, and deserve compassion themselves. That's basically it. The gist of my point has been: it is not unreasonable for people to feel upset. That's it, really.

ProfessorBinturong · 25/02/2026 10:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

His tic is not.

BackToLurk · 25/02/2026 10:42

MissAustenMadeAQuilt · 25/02/2026 10:33

Because his action was done in public

And it wasn't just Hollywood actors who were hurt-although they had to suck it up on a public stage- it was many thousands of black people and white people like myself who were also offended and distressed. My mixed race child heard it and was visibly upset.

Maybe we don't count.

So be it.

How did you explain it to your child?

buffyajp · 25/02/2026 10:45

callmeLoretta1 · 25/02/2026 09:39

Oh, we're back to 'black people call themselves the n word, therefore WHITE people can, too'. FFS, do no one understand the difference between an oppressed group RECLAIMING a word among themselves, and the white race using it?

This is 2026. That racist bigots are still so ignorant of the effect of white people using that word just shows the depths the UK has plunged to in racist ignorance. No wonder Reform is so popular.

'Black people say it, so white people can too', Oh just do FOTTFSOFOATFOSM.

With that, this thread is hidden.

Good. And although you won’t see this I hope you fucking educate yourself properly on Tourette’s. You don’t get to call others prejudiced while being guilty of being just as prejudiced back.

NotBadConsidering · 25/02/2026 10:46

OtterlyAstounding · 25/02/2026 10:34

I just went back through the thread to grab some quotes, and saw that my comments, where I called out SingleSexSpacesInSchools have all been deleted, while they, who dropped such gems as:

"How dark does someone’s skin have to be in order for it to be ok for them to laugh at this exactly? Can you give a number? I look Greek for example that’s quite dark compared to someone from Scotland."

has not been.

So now I just can't be bothered. I shared something about my own trauma responses on here, and got told I'm being self-centred etc, so I'm bowing out. I'm disappointed that so many commenters on FWRs are dismissive of anyone else's conditions or traumas, and ignore racist comments, though.

What does those posts have to do with me and what I said in the quoted post? Nothing as far as I can see.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 25/02/2026 10:48

OtterlyAstounding · 25/02/2026 10:40

"And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate."

What comments?

And no. The world is not out to get me. I have a very happy life actually, thanks. But my experiences mean that I can understand why some people might react badly to tics, and deserve compassion themselves. That's basically it. The gist of my point has been: it is not unreasonable for people to feel upset. That's it, really.

“Choose not to be harmed — and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed — and you haven’t been.”

Swipe left for the next trending thread